You are on page 1of 8

Case 4:12-cr-00272 Document 463

Filed in TXSD on 02/20/13 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMES M. MELDRUM MOTION TO UNSEAL GUILTY PLEA HEARING James M. Meldrum, defendant, files this Motion to Unseal the Guilty Plea Hearing held on January 31, 2013, and states: Facts 1. Mr. Meldrum pleaded guilty to the indictment on January 31, 2013. CRIMINAL NO. H-12-272-20

He did not have a plea agreement and is not in co-operation with the United States. Present at Mr. Meldrums hearing was another defendant in this case who also entered a plea. Mr. Meldrum and his counsel were not aware that the other defendant was co-operating with the United States. Defendants first knowledge of this was at the conclusion of his plea when the Court continued with the colloquy relating to a plea agreement with the other defendant. At the conclusion of the hearing the Assistant United States Attorney moved to seal both pleas and the Motion was granted. No factual findings were entered to support the motion. Defendant Meldrum did not join in the governments motion.

Case 4:12-cr-00272 Document 463

Filed in TXSD on 02/20/13 Page 2 of 8

2.

After the Court retired, the Assistant United States Attorney told

defense counsel that it was his plan to seal all plea hearings without regard to co-operation, or lack thereof, in this complex case. He further explained that this would shield co-operators from retaliation in prison. During a later telephone conversation about this motion, after defense counsel stated that this plan would subject Mr. Meldrum to the same retaliation as co-operators, the Assistant United States Attorney told defense counsel that he was unconcerned about the effect on Mr. Meldrum because he was a member of a violent criminal gang, and that his concern was only in protecting cooperating defendants. Argument 3. The sealing of the defendants guilty plea is a violation of the First

and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The right to an open public trial is a shared right of the accused and the public. Press Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. 478 U.S.1 (1986). A public trial encompasses more than hearings in front of a jury. This right encompasses other hearings, such as preliminary hearings, id., suppression hearings, Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984), and voir dire. Indeed, the absence of a jury, long recognized as an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt of overzealous

Case 4:12-cr-00272 Document 463

Filed in TXSD on 02/20/13 Page 3 of 8

prosecutor and against the compliant, or eccentric judge, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145,156 (1968), makes public access to preliminary hearings even more significant. A guilty plea is the ultimate resolution of the contested issue, no different in effect than a jury trial and verdict or a substantive pretrial motion such as a motion to suppress.

4.

For the United States to prevail in its attempt to seal Mr. Meldrums

plea, its justification must be a weighty one. It must show that the sealing and denial of public access to the hearing and record is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 457 U.S. 596, 561 (1982), citing Brown v. Hartledge, 456 U.S. 45, 53-54 (1982). In this case the government has no compelling interest. Mr. Meldrum has no agreement with the government. He is not a co-operating defendant providing secret evidence to be used against others. The government may have an interest in protecting such informer-defendants in their cases, but that is not the issue here. However, in this case the United States has, by its violation of the defendants Sixth Amendment public trial right, knowingly placed the defendant at risk of harm in prison. The government believes that a sealed plea will be interpreted by others as evidence of co-operation. By sealing

Case 4:12-cr-00272 Document 463

Filed in TXSD on 02/20/13 Page 4 of 8

every plea in this complicated case it hopes to confuse those that would retaliate against informers. Mr. Meldrum has done nothing to justify this added risk to his safety. He is, in effect, a human shield created by the United States to protect its informants. This is an attempt to punish Mr. Meldrum for not informing and is prohibited by U.S.S.G. 5K1.2.

5.

Judge Alvin Rubin of the Fifth Circuit summed up the defendants

right best in Rovinsky v. McKaskle, 722 F.2d 1183, 1184 (1984), stating: The right to a public trial is prophylactic. It is not merely a safeguard against unfair conviction. Open trials play a fundamental role in furthering the efforts of out judicial system to assure the criminal defendant a fair and accurate adjudication of guilt or innocence.[] A public trial protects the right of the accused to have the public know what happened in court; to let the citizenry weigh his guilt or innocence for itself, whatever the jury verdict; to assure that the proceedings employed are fair. Thus, the right is both primary and instrumental: not merely a method to assure that nothing untoward is done clandestinely but a guarantee against the very conduct of private hearings. It is a check on judicial conduct and tends to improve the performance of the parties and the judiciary.[] Even absent a showing of prejudice, infringement of the right to a public trial exacts reversal as a remedy. Citations omitted. The United States has violated Mr. Meldrums Sixth Amendment right to a public trial and interfered with the public scrutiny that is normal for the press and private citizens in violation of the First Amendment. They have not even attempted to offer the Court any facts necessary to justify a

Case 4:12-cr-00272 Document 463

Filed in TXSD on 02/20/13 Page 5 of 8

compelling government interest. Indeed the rationale advanced by the Assistant United States Attorney violates the very principle that they claim, keeping prisoners safe in custody. They have the same obligation to Mr. Meldrum as they do to any co-operating witness. WHEREFORE, James R. Meldrum requests that the Court unseal Mr. Meldrums portion of the guilty plea hearing held on January 31, 2013. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Richard O. Ely II RICHARD O. ELY II Attorney for Defendant Richard O. Ely II, P.L.L.C. Southern District of Texas No. 1294 Texas Bar No. 06595500 5090 Richmond Avenue, Suite 539 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: 713-524-3443 E-mail roely2@yahoo.com CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I certify that I have discussed this motion with Assistant United States Attorney Jay Hileman and he has indicated that the government is opposed to this motion. /s/ Richard O. Ely II RICHARD O. ELY II

Case 4:12-cr-00272 Document 463

Filed in TXSD on 02/20/13 Page 6 of 8

Case 4:12-cr-00272 Document 463

Filed in TXSD on 02/20/13 Page 7 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 21, 2013, a copy of this Request for Travel Permit was served by notice of electronic filing upon all parties of record. /s/ Richard O. Ely II RICHARD O. ELY II

Case 4:12-cr-00272 Document 463

Filed in TXSD on 02/20/13 Page 8 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMES M. MELDRUM ORDER The Motion to Unseal the Guilty Plea Hearing of JAMES M. MELDRUM is GRANTED/DENIED/set for hearing on ____________, 2013. SIGNED at Houston, Texas on ____________________, 2013. CRIMINAL NO. H-12-272-20

______________________________ SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

You might also like